Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB

[trulpen]

mIC in Cairo perhaps?

[trulpen]

Italy should not want to build fleet here, but rather mechs to support Barbarossa.

[trulpen]

@trulpen said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

Italy should not want to build fleet here, but rather mechs to support Barbarossa.

I think this means that there’s actually no rush in taking out the Italian navy, but can wait until it’s more favourable. Especially after taking out Tobruk, Italy will have a hard time building up a Med-threat.

If they do, Germany loses their invaluable can-opening-capability, which makes it a lot easier for Russia to defend and avoid Crushia.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@trulpen that would depend on your confidence of holding Egypt. If you build a mIC in Cairo on UK1 but make it too easy for the Axis to conquer the territory, you invite them to go after Africa first. A German strafe followed by an Italian landing is possible if you make the wrong moves.

[Omega1759]

@trulpen

Did you download the map I posted? I did the “crazy” UK turn, worth taking a look.

[trulpen]

@Omega1759 said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

Did you download the map I posted? I did the “crazy” UK turn, worth taking a look.

Haven’t yet, but I will check it out. Thanks!

[trulpen]

I thought about air-striking FIC. It’s a bit high risk, but if only losing a tac like in this test, it’s worth it. Makes a 20 TUV-swing in the right direction. It’s also a 33 % chance of not losing a plane at all.

[trulpen]

The question there is if we really want to play high risk? I’d be content with a -10 to -20 TUV-swing for Japan, just planting the 3 planes in Yunnan. I’d say that’s deterrent enough. But please continue to chip in opinions.

[trulpen]

@Omega1759 said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

The landing in Siam seems wasteful but we don’t want Japanese planes to land there.

I honestly don’t understand this move. Japan has FIC. Air can land there. Why waste 2 inf and a tr for nothing? Japan can easily just take back Siam immediately and then nothing was really gained. Or?

[trulpen]

It’s cool, but I don’t believe in the Greece landing either. Nice to get those 4 inf, but G can easily take it out while at the same time smashing the fleet. Those figs won’t have a landing spot anyway, atleast if Greece is battled first. UK loses the tr with not so much gained.

[trulpen]

Also, stacking in z110 is a loss of the fleet. Of course, G has to choose between z97 and z110, but taking out the ships in z110 seems more favourable. Just mass up the two ships and all air. It’s a +90% battle with a 30 TUV-swing and UK is then severely crippled also losing 5 figs. Feels unnecessary.

Why not just attack that sub and bs with a des and a lot of air and stack the fleet in z109 with double scramble cover?

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@trulpen I don’t understand that move either. If you are going to put your UK airforce in Yunnan, you might as well send infantry to Persia or Ethiopia with that transport. Japan will kill any troops that you land in the Money Islands so it isn’t worth spending 13PUs to make it a tad bit harder.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@trulpen It is possible with a huge UK1 build to hold onto SZ110, but I don’t see the point of stacking so much into the Atlantic when you aren’t planning to land anywhere soon. Without USA support, UK can’t do amphibious attacks.

[trulpen]

Persia is my prefered choice. Getting UKs economy going and preparing for an early mIC. That should come as early as possible.

I also prefer a double factory-complex in Iraq and Persia, why I don’t really believe a mIC in Cairo is the best choice. UK won’t need 3 mICs in the area. Or 4 if S Africa counts. A tr down there might be a jolly good idea though, preparing for a troop shuffle with 2 tr’s. But that’s only if the tr by Cairo is needed for Tobruk. Otherwise we’re set with that one and the one from Calcutta.

[trulpen]

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

@trulpen It is possible with a huge UK1 build to hold onto SZ110, but I don’t see the point of stacking so much into the Atlantic when you aren’t planning to land anywhere soon. Without USA support, UK can’t do amphibious attacks.

I very much agree with that. UK should build fleet to support US transports. Not critical at the moment.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@trulpen so something like this move? Not sure exactly about your Tobruk plans. UK option.tsvg

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

followed by 3 or 4 planes to Gibraltar and moving the fleet to SZ92

[trulpen]

Something like that. I’m considering moving the fleet down to z80 instead though and skip the Gibraltar ab for now. I want to buy bases as late as possible.

One of the ideas with the mIC in Cairo is to allow for the russian grab of Iraq. I’m still keeping that open as an option, if it’s advantageous. It’s not forced, but a nice possibility.

If that happens, we want to have built the Cairo mIC as early as possible. With Tobruk obliterated Italy shouldn’t be able to compete for Cairo, even with 2 trannies.

[trulpen]

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

followed by 3 or 4 planes to Gibraltar and moving the fleet to SZ92

I’m considering securing the UK fleet in z109 instead. Would mean a des purchase instead of an ac and not hitting the sub in z110, blocking both z119 and 110.

Unless the fleet can be secure enough without blockers, but I doubt it. 6 figs to scramble could be the thing though.

[trulpen]

@Omega1759 said in Tutor game: AndrewAAGamer (X) vs trulpen [and everyone else] (A+50) OOB:

We don’t have much of a bid in the Pacific but we have to take risks.

Sometimes, yes, but I believe in trying to solidify a material advantage instead of risking it. Atleast when it’s not called for.